Grafar OO gauge Pannier Tank

[Hibernian]

Hi folks,

 

Can anyone help, please?  I have a Black BR Grafar OO gauge pannier tank needing a front hand-rail (to fit above the smoke box door), and I would prefer to obtain a spare or replacement one, as I have no model making skills.  Thanks.

[Kris]

Given this model is at least 40 years old (or very nearly) getting hold of spares may be very hard. You might need to look for another model sold as spares that has the bit on you want and take it off it. Once done you could always sell the donor on as spares or repairs again to recoup some or all of the expenditure. 

[locomad2]

You have no broken parts, almost certain that's how they were made 70 odd years ago, it's a "clip fit" fitting. Mine is the same. You could replace it with a thinner ball type hand rail support and a thinner wire plus plug the gap made by thicker wire. 

[cypherman]

Hi all,

I have 2 of them and that is how the front handrail is attached on both of mine. You could try getting a Lima pannier front handrail from one being broken for spares.

[DCB]

A job for an old paper clip and a pair of small long nosed pliers.    I have had several Farish 94XX but they all had the Handrail in place.   Normally I like to use piano wire for Handrails but the Farish has fittings for quite large wire and quite large piano wire doesn't bend too well.

It's hard work but I don't think a Lima 94XX or Airfix/Horby 14XX parts will fit .

However an Airfix/Hornby 61XX handrail or a Mainline /Bachmann 2251 may well be suitable, much too long but they can be shorteed and aren't exactly scarce.

The smokebox handrail  (and Numberplate on BR loos)  is very important to the look of a loco, Innumerable locos have been ruined by poor Handrails and wrong size / wrong place number plates.     I once bought a Wills 94XX bodyshell as part of a job lot on eBay for £5, It  didn't have the front handrail, I made one from Piano wire with some old handrail knobs, sprayed it with Poundland matt black and sold it on eBay for a tenner.  That's how important the front Handrail is.

[The Johnster]

Even if you do not rate your modelling skills, this is not a difficult job, honestly.  Once you have sourced a suitable piece of wire, straight not coiled, make a rough estimate of the total length and cut the wire a little longer than this.  Starting at the centre of the length you've just cut, bend it to about 160-170 degrees around a suitablly raduissed item; you will probably find a small bottle that is around the right size.  Once the main shaping has been done, either ease the radius out or tighten it in to match the curve of the smokebox front between the outside edge of the smokebox and the edge of the door, which is where the handrail will eventually sit. 

 

When you are happy with this, using a small pair of long nosed pliers bend the wire to run sharply horizontally from the bottom of the curved section on each side so that the bend comes out with the horizontal level with the holes in the front of the the tanks that the piece will locate into eventually, and then bend it again about 1.5mm further out through 90 degrees to run backwards along the side of the smokebox, again on each side.  Line the finished piece up against the loco and trim the wire at the rearward ends to fit into the hole in the front of the tanks.  Clip the handrail into the clip peice at the top of the smokebox front, and feed the rearward ends into the holes in the tank fronts, then secure everything with a spot of superglue behind each tank front hole and at the smokebox top clip.  Job done. 

 

You will need; length of straight wire, ideally long enough to make several attempts but your first attempt can be 're-bent' several times until you get it right, small long-nose pliers, wire cutter, superglue, optional black paint, and can of beer to celebrate when you have successfully finished.

 

If the wire you use is finer than the original (rather overscale) Grafar one, you may need to provide filler in the tank front holes; Milliput is fine for this, but you will need to touch up the area with black paint.  Personally, I would paint the handrails black as well, and the tank vents, as this is correct for the prototype in BR livery.  Having done this job successfully, which I have no doubt you will be able to manage, you may well want to replace the handrails on the tank sides as well, an easier job but you have to get the 90 degree bends in the right place to line up with the holes.  I have to warn you that this sort of thing becomes addictive and you will, if you are not careful, end up as a modeller.

 

One of us, one of us...

[Il Grifone]

This is what it should look like:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=94xx+pannier+tank

 

The Farish handrail is rather approximative (must replace mine!). I have to confess to using copper wire for handrails in the past (it then needs extreme care to avoid damage) having had problems with nickel-silver. (I should have annealed it....). The real thing is about 1½" -2" in diameter (perhaps someone knows the actual figure?) so 0.5-0.7mm wire is required. New knobs and a bit of hole filling will be required.

 

The Farish model bears the number 9410 on an embossed travesty of the GWR number plate. (Etched replacement required!) This indicates that she is intended to be one of the GWR batch, which were slightly different from the BR built examples. (How accurate the model is is a moot point of course.)

Besides the number plate, a touch of green or black as appropriate (or even brass) paint on the (awful) safety valve casing improves matters no end.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Il Grifone

[The Johnster]

The Grafar 94xx (reasonably accurately for 60s RTR) represents a BR loco built by a contractor, 199 out of a class of 210, the main visible difference being that the 11 original 1947 GWR locos had sloping cover plates between the frames where they protrude above the running plate ahead of the smokebox (the Lima version represents this), as shown in Il Grifone’s photo link.  9410 is therefore incorrect for this loco. 
 

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by The Johnster

[Halvarras]

I thought Swindon built the first ten, 9400-9409, the other 200 were all contractor output, making 9410 the first of these and therefore correct?

[The Johnster]

Just checked and you are right, Niel; my apologies to Graham Farish.  10 GW locos 9400-9410, right? oh, hang on a mo, no, wrong, the class starts at 9400 not 9401, come on Johnster, smell the coffee...

[Il Grifone]

Oops!

Somewhere I got hold of the idea that 9410 was the last of the Swindon built batch. No idea where, but it must have been from someone else who can't count!

Moral check first, bash the keyboard second!

[exet1095]

I hope nobody minds me resurrecting this thread.

 

I recently acquired a GWR green 94xx body with no chassis. I’d like to get it running cheaply and easily with an RTR chassis:
 

As it’s solid cast metal it means the split chassis Bachmann pannier is a no, and it is too wide to fit between the splasher backs. I also have a recent Hornby Jinty. That looks narrow enough, but bits of the block at the front and back would need to be cut off.

 

Has anyone done this conversion? All advice gratefully received.

 

Oh yes, what to do about those weird buffers too?

 

 Thanks,

 

Paul

[Il Grifone]

The chassis is basically the same as that of the prairie (less pony trucks) and has the wrong wheelbase. The Hornby Jinty chassis is probably too long to fit. Possibly an early Tri-ang chassis could be modified. The les for the axles are easier to redrill than the slots of the Hornby. In any case avoid the later Hornby SSPP type with the sprung rear axle

The buffers can either be cut off completely and the proper type fitted or just the heads could be replaced with the large Hornby type (preferably the metal type, but the plastic should do).

[The Johnster]

The later, not split, Bachmann 57xx/8750 is probably the best runner, but not cheap to get secondhand.  A Hornby generic Jinty will be much cheaper, but try to get something more modern than the Triang Jinty with flangeless centre drivers.  The metal Grafar body can be insulated with insulating tape to prevent shorting.  I reckon the Hornby SSPP will be ok given the weight bearing down on the rear sprung axle, but Il Grifone's comments should be taken into account.

 

If you really want cheap, then the rather crude Lima 94xx is the way to go, and it can be made to run reasonably will if it is scrupulously cleaned, but with this approach you might as well use the much better Lima body and renumber  to 9400-9.

 

Problems will arise when you try to line up the (incorrectly spaced) splashers with the (differently incorrectly spaced) Hornby wheels, and you will have to settle for whatever you think is the least unacceptable compromise taking into account that the Grafar 94xx was probably not considered to be too bad in it's day, but is very compromised by modern standards, and I wouldn't spend too much time or especially money on it.

 

If you manage to get it running tolerably well, then new buffers and etched numberplates will make a huge difference to it.  The biggest visual issues them will be the overscale handrails, which is where the thread started, and the odd interpretation of the safety valve cover/topfeed housing.  Carving this off and replacing it is a fairly major undertaking and I'd understand if you preferred to paint it over and weather it a bit. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by The Johnster

[exet1095]

Thanks, I have the Jinty and pannier chassis to hand; my aim is a quick conversion with no extra cost, rather than get stuck-in to a serious job. 
 

Johnster, I have two Lima bodies too (one on the Lima chassis it has had since I bought it as a teenager. Perhaps I should use the Bachmann for that and cram the (helpfully plastic) Lima one into the Grafar body. That would confuse people. And the weight will probably take it into the Heljan haulage league!

[DCB]

I have two Farish Bodied 94XX both with Hornby 57XX chassis, Synchrosmoke type,   A chunk needs to be filed out of the rear of the chassis above the rear coupling block and I filed up a plate to screw to the bottom of the bunker and fit a matching slot in the chassis rear which involved drilling and tapping a couple of 6BA holes to take the screws.   Front fixing a flat plate where the synchrosmoke unit used to be engaging with the slot below the smokebox.  My main one has Romford wheels front and rear with 1/8th axles, centre Romfords with the middle drilled out to fit Triang axles with Triang Brass gear,  Worm wheel shimmed for minimum sideplay, which means no flanges ( or 30" min radius) but it pickups on the insulated flangless wheel.  The wheelbase is 3mm too long at the front but it doesn't look out of place, and with a 5 pole  X04 it runs very quietly and reliably pushing 8 coach rakes of heavy Hornby Dublo coaches.  It was replaced by a Lima Bachmann hybrid but that couldn't actually pull or push the trains so it made a come back.   It did some snow ploughing on the outside branch last year teamed with a Gaiety pannier on a H/D chassis.   Just keeps going.

I'm pretty sure the Lima motor is too big to fit the Grafar cab, the Triang  solid non synchrosmoke chassis needs drastic surgery at the front, the Strip steel side one needs new front spacer.  I don't think the Bachmann fits up inside the boiler.  The SSPP chassis may well be too high at the motor .  The Grafar chassis I have seen have all worn their worm wheels away.

My other 94 is the same but 3 Pole X04 and Hornby dublo R1 wheels,  (The Limbach's Lima body awaits a Triang Chassis, its Bachmann chassis died when the motor failed)    The Grafar 94XX is sadly under width so doesn't capture the sheer size of the brutes.   

 

[The Johnster]

The Limbach conversion is a well trodden route that I took myself while waiting for the Baccy 94xx to arrive: this of course trumps everything; to scale as far as a 00 RTR can be, superb performer, excellent detail.  It is not a difficult job but some hacking away of the Lima body is needed and ballasting it as much as you can will improve haulage.  I was more bothered by the valve chest top cover plate appropriate to the GW built engines, 9400 to 9409, than the axle spacing-splasher mismatch, not screamingling obvious except from 90 degree side on viewpoint, as my prototype was a BR 'production' version without said cover plate.  The essential characteristics and 'feel' of a 94xx are there.

 

Lima chassis under Grafar body, well, it'll work once you've figured out body mounts.  But it's an awful chassis, designed for J50 so wrong coupling rods and axle spacing, and no physical connection at all between coupling rods and centre wheels, which are cosmetic and do not have any balance weights.  The plastic chassis block will be an advantage with the die cast Grafar body, though, and it'll pull a house down!

[Il Grifone]

To clarify, my objection to the SSPP chassis is not that it doesn't work (my sole example runs well), but that it can need careful adjustment to ensure that it does*. Carving it up and adding a heavy metal body will almost certainly need resetting the spring tensions.

Incidently my Farish 94xx with the original chassis performs beautifully with excellent slow starting.

 

* Springing the rear axle of a three axle chassis is not the cleverest solution....

 

IMHO, the main faults with the Farish model are the safety valve casing, the wheelbase, those buffers, and the bunker steps on the driver's side (climbing onto the bunker was the fireman's job). Other details are rather coarse (not uncommon with diecast alloy models) and lastly the wheels and coupling rods leave something to be desired.

A worthwhile improvement to Tri-ang and early Hornby 0-6-0 chassis is to fit the later plastic gear sets. I don't usually approve of plastic gears, but increasing the reduction ratio from 20:1 to 28:1 makes up for it.

[exet1095]

The Jinty chassis in question is an almost new train set one, China made, with a small open-frame motor fitted. This one is non-DCC. I might do some careful measuring today to see if I can cut bits off without wrecking the whole thing. Likewise, (almost any!) buffers from the scrap box will probably be an improvement on the Grafar pin heads, although I will see if the heads will come out before cutting off the whole thing.

 

Paul

[exet1095]

The Jinty chassis in question is an almost new train set one, China made, with a small open-frame motor fitted. This one is non-DCC. I might do some careful measuring today to see if I can cut bits off without wrecking the whole thing. Likewise, (almost any!) buffers from the scrap box will probably be an improvement on the Grafar pin heads, although I will see if the heads will come out before cutting off the whole thing.

 

Paul

[DCB]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Lima chassis under Grafar body, well, it'll work once you've figured out body mounts.  But it's an awful chassis, designed for J50 so wrong coupling rods and axle spacing, and no physical connection at all between coupling rods and centre wheels, which are cosmetic and do not have any balance weights.  The plastic chassis block will be an advantage with the die cast Grafar body, though, and it'll pull a house down!

The Lima chassis can be improved with an extra set of leading wheels used as the middle wheels and the coupling rods drilled to take the crank pins.  You also need to add pickups to the rear wheels as you effectively lose the springing on the rear wheels.  I still don't think the Lima Motor fits the much narrower Grafar cab

3 hours ago, exet1095 said:

Likewise, (almost any!) buffers from the scrap box will probably be an improvement on the Grafar pin heads, although I will see if the heads will come out before cutting off the whole thing.

Paul

I'm pretty sure the buffer heads push in to the buffer stocks. You can probably find some nails with appropriately sized heads in B&Q you can shorten to replace the buffer heads.... I do, and turn them down in the lathe.  The tops of those funny plastic drawing pins also make nice buffer heads. Again you can file them down in a lathe or drill chuck.   

Edited January 25, 2022 by DCB

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

 

IMHO, the main faults with the Farish model are the safety valve casing, the wheelbase, those buffers, and the bunker steps on the driver's side

 

Safety valve casing is the biggest of these problems by several miles; wheelbase can't be done anything much about if you are not replacing the chassis, and you have to just live with it rather than it being a problem in a sense, buffers are compartively easy to replace, and the insed bunker steps filled with Milliput or similar.  The top of the safety valve casing comes off easily enough, but you then have to remove a good bit of awkwardly shaped metal as the base part of it, along with the topfeed casing, is part of the main body casting and not amenable to sawing off.  A lot of faff as the stump has to be filed away and the surface dressed and made good before a retrofit piece can be glued or soldered to it.  The Grafar prairie suffers similarly and they draw attention to themselves by having separate brass tops.

 

I've never really thought much about it, but I suppose it might be feasible to Milliput the very obvious join between the base and top of the casing, and paint over.  Certainly less work than the above replacement procedure, but not amenable to a model with a polished brass safety valve cover.  These locos had copper capped chimneys as well, and scrubbed up well, but in practice rarely; the default livery was standard BR filth.  A model in plain matt black with a BR emblem would look fine  IMHO.

 

There is a point with these older models where one has to accept the limit to which they can be worked up.  I've experienced this with a Hornby 2721, which I've enjoyed improving but have had to call a halt as there is only so much the lily can be gilded or the t*rd polished; it'll n be the right length or have the splashers aligned to the axles.  I gave up on it's running chassis, the one with the sprung rear axle, and replaced it with Bachmann 57xx underpinnings. but the springing can be adjusted.  According to the service sheet that comes with the model in the box and can be downloaded from Hornby's website as a pdf, you can increase the spring pressure by stretching the springs, or decrease it by trimming the length of them, so stretching them should enable them to cope with the heavier Grafar cast body.  My struggle with this chassis included rubbing down the ends of the springs with emery to reduce the friction that had  scratched marks on the axle, a minor improvement in performance resulting.  Adjusting was fiddly and faffy, and I aimed to get the body to sit down on the rear axle rather than the originial situation in which overstretched springs pushed it up, but to only just sit down rather than sit hard. 

 

It did improve the running, but the constant faffing with pickups and the thing's ability to attract dirt persuaded me to the Baccy mech.

 

 

[Il Grifone]

That's the trouble with the SSPP chassis. Too much spring pressure and the rear lifts causing the traction tyres on the centre axle to lose contact with the rails and too little causes it to sag and the front axle lifts upsetting the pickup at least and derailing at worst. Luckily mine arrived set up correctly and I have left well alone. It's under a 2721 body* and every time I look at it I think that I have to do something about that chimney!

 

*The price (toy fair) was right and I couldn't resist! (not that I have great sales resistance to rail related bargains especially GWR!) SWMBO says I have too much junk, which fails to make sense on two counts....

[The Johnster]

I replaced the chimney, dome, safety valve cover, fillers, tank vents, smokebox (complete with dart) and buffers of mine with items from a dead Westward 64xx, and the improvement in appearance is immediate and fundamental.  I believe the shape of the chimney was needed to release the bodyshell from the mould!  Also worth the very small expense and effort is real coal and a crew for the cab.  I've taken things a stage further and made a canvas weather sheet from painted aly foil, because replacing the Hornby chassis with a Baccy 57xx involves a small hole cut by the firebox door for the Baccy worm.  The weather sheet and crew help to hide this from all but the severest scrutiny.  I think it's a nice variation that you rarely see modelled.

 

Possible future embellishments may take place at the unspecified time in the future that I acquire my long awaited and badly needed round tuit.  These could include an attempt at the brass rims for the spectacle windows, already glazed, and a new cab roof; the ribbed Hornby affair is wrong for this, and in fact TTBOMK any, GW saddle or pannier. 

 

2761 is very much a 'layout' model, in no way accurate but worked up as best I can.  She has a lot of character, and despite the prototype probably not leaving the immediate vicinity of Tondu shed in her declining years, occasionally puts in an appearance on the pickup or even hauling auto trailers because Rule 1 says the auto engine has been pinched for services in one of the other valleys to cover a failure.  Her last overhaul was at Caerphilly during the 1942-5 austerity period, where she acquired the tell-tale Caerphilly plain black livery and 'grotesque' lettering  that she was withdrawn with at the end of March 1950, last of her class at Tondu.  I doubt if anyone missed her much; she was probably a right bag of nails at the end!

 

But I'd bin her in a heartbeat if someone came up with an RTR to current standards!!!

[DCB]

My original Triang/Grafar/Hornby mongrel.  Out of use for a good many years. It needs footsteps obviously, More Hornby Dublo than fine scale  it runs beautifully with its X04 running a stack of super neo magnets Free from dead CD drives.  It runs round 1st radius Set track. Hornby Dublo R1 wheels, centre pickups, bushed Triang gear wheel and H/D 1/8th axles in Romford top hat bushes. Coupling rods standard Triang with a Triang 10BA  screw threaded into a Triang Black Princess brass threaded boss araldited into the H/D wheel, The other had a filed down Triang 8BA motor mounting screw threaded in to a 8BA motor mounting bolt threaded into the H/D wheels tapped 8BA (Not 10BA as per Triang)    The oversize wheels emphasise the splasher spacing issues,  Would have taken pics of my gooder one but the car alternator failed so no running session tonight. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by DCB